OT - UNITE/BA

hmbadger

Wallace1492 wrote:

further wrote:

BA has a terrible record on industrial relations. Sack Willy Walsh!

Yes, terrible that they have the best paid cabin crew in the land, with perks all over the shop.

We pay for these!!

Get cheap labour in - I would rather have no free g&t and a cheaper seat.
They only spend the extra dosh on make up..... and is there such a thing as a straight cabin boy?

What have you got against gay stewards?

wrt the "cheap labour", care to share your job with us? Let's see if we can explore ways of making you redundant.

lost_in_thought

further wrote:

Get cheap labour in - I would rather have no free g&t and a cheaper seat.
They only spend the extra dosh on make up..... and is there such a thing as a straight cabin boy?

You sure you're not on BA's negotiating team? :shock:

Noone wants to lose money and risk retribution by striking but it is the only power staff have in the face of attitudes like this.

Attitudes like what?!

They are striking about the retribution they got from striking last time! That sound like a great attitude to me. Part of me wants the whole airline to go up in smoke, then they'll be sorry.

But I like BA, and I have all my airmiles with them.

hmbadger

Greg66 wrote:

I should add that I find it hard to muster a huge amount of sympathy for this sort of thing. principally because I'm self employed.

So holiday = no pay. Sick = no pay. Pension? Provide it myself. Medical care? Ditto. Need a desk to work at, and a computer to work on? Buy them yourself. Need paint on the walls? Pay a decorator. C2W scheme? No sir, that's for employed people, not the likes of you.

Etc etc.

This is mostly rubbish though. I'm a salaried employee and hence get holiday pay, etc. But do you not think this is taken into account when my company sets my salary level?

hmbadger

lost_in_thought wrote:

further wrote:

Get cheap labour in - I would rather have no free g&t and a cheaper seat.
They only spend the extra dosh on make up..... and is there such a thing as a straight cabin boy?

You sure you're not on BA's negotiating team? :shock:

Noone wants to lose money and risk retribution by striking but it is the only power staff have in the face of attitudes like this.

Attitudes like what?!

They are striking about the retribution they got from striking last time! That sound like a great attitude to me. Part of me wants the whole airline to go up in smoke, then they'll be sorry.

But I like BA, and I have all my airmiles with them.

Attitudes like "get cheap labour in".

What do you do then? Shall we see if we can get someone to do that cheaper? Or maybe you wouldn't care - I get the impression that you and your family aren;t short of a bob or two.

tailwindhome

Always Tyred wrote:

That's disingenuous.

It was a bit.

Only a bit though.

It does shock me how people have bought into BAs version of events and the great recession myth that "We're all in this together".

http://www.unitetheunion.com/PDF/100milldispute.pdf

Over three days of strikes we could then conservatively estimate the
total cost as around £45 million. Over seven days of strikes, this
dispute will therefore have cost British Airways over £100 million.
That is even before adding on the imponderable cost of missed
bookings because of uncertainty over the reliability of future operations.
This is a staggering amount to be spent on an avoidable dispute. It
begs the obvious question:
WHY IS BA SPENDING SO MUCH?
It would seem clear that BA have spent vastly more attempting to
break the strike than they could have spent on resolving it.
It is not disputed that, in the current economic environment, the
company needed to make savings. That is why cabin crew
volunteered, after negotiation, a comprehensive programme of cost
reductions aimed at meeting management’s requirements. Unite
believes these concessions amounted to £62 million, the target set by
management. BA dispute this, and assert they amounted to only £52
million.The difference was therefore £10 million, a gulf that could and should
have been bridged before a dispute costing much more became
inevitable.

Wallace1492

hmbadger wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

further wrote:

BA has a terrible record on industrial relations. Sack Willy Walsh!

Yes, terrible that they have the best paid cabin crew in the land, with perks all over the shop.

We pay for these!!

Get cheap labour in - I would rather have no free g&t and a cheaper seat.
They only spend the extra dosh on make up..... and is there such a thing as a straight cabin boy?

What have you got against gay stewards?

wrt the "cheap labour", care to share your job with us? Let's see if we can explore ways of making you redundant.

I am obviously being the devil's advocate here. If I was paid well for my line of work, I would not want to make waves and strike, just in case they did bring in cheap labour, I would be negotiating away and not drawing attention to myself.

I have nothing against Cabin Stewards at all... just highlighting an issue. I mean, I would say a lot of bar staff are straight, so why does the job attract gay men? After all there are plenty of lovely trolley dollies on every plane. Just an observation, nothing more....

mcj78

further wrote:

Get cheap labour in - I would rather have no free g&t and a cheaper seat.
They only spend the extra dosh on make up..... and is there such a thing as a straight cabin boy?

You sure you're not on BA's negotiating team? :shock:

Noone wants to lose money and risk retribution by striking but it is the only power staff have in the face of attitudes like this.

British Airways in record £531 million loss: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10135112.stm

How long before they start considering not only changes to t&c but compulsory redundancies to cut costs - with the advent of cheap air travel they've been losing business & this strike is driving customers away in their droves - even after this episode, i'd think twice about flying BA in case their precious staff decided to strike again over soemthing else.

Has anyone ever seen a group of people so overjoyed about going on strike, seriously? Or do you think they're looking forward to a few days prancing around in the sunshine like kids with their Willie Walsh devil signs having a great laugh at how people will have to bow down to them as they can cause widespread travel disruption...

tailwindhome

hmbadger wrote:

Or maybe you wouldn't care - I get the impression that you and your family aren;t short of a bob or two.

Fella, argue your point of view, but cheap personal shots aren't welcome round here!

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen666 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I should add that I find it hard to muster a huge amount of sympathy for this sort of thing. principally because I'm self employed.

So holiday = no pay. Sick = no pay. Pension? Provide it myself. Medical care? Ditto. Need a desk to work at, and a computer to work on? Buy them yourself. Need paint on the walls? Pay a decorator. C2W scheme? No sir, that's for employed people, not the likes of you.

Etc etc.

You seem to have forgotten all the tax benefits you get by being self employed - putting personal expenses through as business ones etc

I don't put personal expenses through as business expenses. That's route 1 to an HMRC investigation and potentially end of career.

You get bobbins all tax benefits when you're self employed, believe me.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

A group of middle class lawyers and bankers think that the chaps who bring the tea and scones should stop being so uppity and be damned glad they even have a job.

HOW DARE YOU!!!


Well, I suppose it's easier to attack the person than the argument.

lost_in_thought

hmbadger wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

further wrote:

Get cheap labour in - I would rather have no free g&t and a cheaper seat.
They only spend the extra dosh on make up..... and is there such a thing as a straight cabin boy?

You sure you're not on BA's negotiating team? :shock:

Noone wants to lose money and risk retribution by striking but it is the only power staff have in the face of attitudes like this.

Attitudes like what?!

They are striking about the retribution they got from striking last time! That sound like a great attitude to me. Part of me wants the whole airline to go up in smoke, then they'll be sorry.

But I like BA, and I have all my airmiles with them.

Attitudes like "get cheap labour in".

What do you do then? Shall we see if we can get someone to do that cheaper? Or maybe you wouldn't care - I get the impression that you and your family aren;t short of a bob or two.

What gives you that impression? And why on earth is it relevant?

I'm sure you could get someone to do what I do cheaper, fortunately I accept my working conditions and am not on strike putting the company I work for in jeopardy, so it's hardly pertinent. If I did go on strike, I'd be fired. And I'd deserve it.

Wallace1492

Calm down people, calm down....

It's a Friday afternoon, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, nearly home/beer time....

We can do it all again next week...

hmbadger

They're workers trying to maintain their standard of living. They are negotiating - accepting lower staff numbers, etc.

You support sacking them and employing whoever will do the job for least money. Maybe we should get rid of the minimum wage whilst we're at it?

And if you're suggesting sacking people and replacing them with lower paid workers then I don't think that your personal wealth is wholly irrelevant.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

A group of middle class lawyers and bankers think that the chaps who bring the tea and scones should stop being so uppity and be damned glad they even have a job.

HOW DARE YOU!!!


Well, I suppose it's easier to attack the person than the argument.

I apologise completely and unreservedly for any post that I have made which even so much as implies in anyway that a man of your calibre could be associated with the Middle Class masses.



Nice font BTW

Violet eh?

Lovely

always_tyred

TailWindHome wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

That's disingenuous.

It was a bit.

Only a bit though.

It does shock me how people have bought into BAs version of events and the great recession myth that "We're all in this together".

http://www.unitetheunion.com/PDF/100milldispute.pdf

mmm. That's AFTER the first lot of strikes, though, isn't it?

The union's opening gambit was to go on strike about maintaining the salary of existing staff, but to reduce staff numbers over time. For example, they were up in arms about reducing from 15 to 14 staff on long haul flights, which is more than the 13 staff they used to have on long haul flights, on the grounds that each member of staff would have more work to do.

Don't know if that means they'll have less time to chat, or what, but I struggle to imagine that thesse particular union guys are terribly reasonable. Quite how 90% of cabin crew could actually agree, I simply don't know.

I don't think I can remember a less popular strike, even including the tanker drivers, tube drivers and post office workers.

davmaggs

BA are stuck with large legacy costs (like the pension) from the days when air travel was a premium service. However, like many other industries the world moved on and the price they could charge fell and fell, but those costs didn't. Meanwhile the budget airlines sprang up and don't have to support all those legacy overheads.

Every airline pays roughly the same for fuel and aircraft, so you are down to running costs and routes that are the only difference.

Willie walsh doesn't want to lose, because their legacy costs are rising and they will more than likely need to restructure again. Yes, the strike costs more than the saving but this is only round one, and UNITE will do them again and again. Air travel is a commodity now and like Detroit there is a fair chance that unions won't acknowlege it until bankrupcy comes.

The UNITE boss was on radio 4 this morning. They asked him to explain what the travel perk was and why it was important (so that the public won't get the wrong end of the stick) and he simply wouldn't tell them. He started going on and on about Walsh. The presenter gave up in the end. Imagine been stuck negoiating with someone that beligerent?

jonginge

TailWindHome wrote:

Nice font BTW

Violet eh?

Lovely

I'd bet being emoticon-free is tough some days

Greg T

Other Greg isn't middle class.

He's self employed, like a jobbing brick layer.

However if you see his hands you'll see his nails are so long he looks like the Wicked Witch... So the analogy as a horny handed man of the people breaks down a bit.

I'd like to know how much dough you need in the bank to be excluded from having an opinion on the ramifications of going on strike over a bank holiday whilst working for an airline that's posting Billion dollar losses?

tailwindhome

JonGinge wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Nice font BTW

Violet eh?

Lovely

I'd bet being emoticon-free is tough some days

You're not wrong

greg66_tri_v2.0

hmbadger wrote:

They're workers trying to maintain their standard of living. They are negotiating - accepting lower staff numbers, etc.

That's not at all what this strike is about. it's about reinstating non contractual perks to employees who've been on strike, and about reinstating sacked employees who've been dismissed for bullying and harassment.

hmbadger wrote:

This is mostly rubbish though. I'm a salaried employee and hence get holiday pay, etc. But do you not think this is taken into account when my company sets my salary level?

See above. This isn't about protecting salary levels any more. It's about the Union proving to its members that if they do what it asks them to, they won't suffer for it.

If you want to strike, fine. Just don't go crying to mummy when the consequences of that action cost you precisely what you were told they would. Principles have a price.

hmbadger

Greg T wrote:

Other Greg isn't middle class.

He's self employed, like a jobbing brick layer.

However if you see his hands you'll see his nails are so long he looks like the Wicked Witch... So the analogy as a horny handed man of the people breaks down a bit.

I'd like to know how much dough you need in the bank to be excluded from having an opinion on the ramifications of going on strike over a bank holiday whilst working for an airline that's posting Billion dollar losses?

I don't think that anyone is saying that you can't have an opinion, irrespective of how much money you have.

But if you have a lot, and you are supporting sacking striking workers and replacing them with people who will work for less, then you can expect some stick.

W1

hmbadger wrote:

They're workers trying to maintain their standard of living. They are negotiating - accepting lower staff numbers, etc.

You support sacking them and employing whoever will do the job for least money. Maybe we should get rid of the minimum wage whilst we're at it?

And if you're suggesting sacking people and replacing them with lower paid workers then I don't think that your personal wealth is wholly irrelevant.

They're being greedy.

They're attempting to blackmail their employer and, to a degree, completely innocent members of the public.

They are too short sighted - or too ignorant - to see that the long term consequences of their actions are much more serious than having to serve a couple more drinks on each flight.

There are loads of people who could and would do that job without complaint. If the Unions want to try and play hard-ball then so should BA. I for one would not give "perks" back to employees who had tried to shaft my company.

MadammeMarie

hmbadger wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Greg T wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

+1 and of course the strikers were warned BEFORE they went on strike of the consequences - ie they would lose their perks if they went on strike.

And so they should just cave in to that sort of blackmail? Christ, wouldn't like to be beside you in the trenches.

Can't believe some of the stuff in this thread.

I didn't write that!

hmbadger

MadammeMarie wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Greg T wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

+1 and of course the strikers were warned BEFORE they went on strike of the consequences - ie they would lose their perks if they went on strike.

And so they should just cave in to that sort of blackmail? Christ, wouldn't like to be beside you in the trenches.

Can't believe some of the stuff in this thread.

I didn't write that!

Sorry, I don;t post much and I tried to be clever with the quoting bit!

Greg T

hmbadger wrote:

But if you have a lot, and you are supporting sacking striking workers and replacing them with people who will work for less, then you can expect some stick.

I'm not suggesting sacking anyone.

Just suggesting that sriking is a bad idea when your firm is going down the pan - woukld you disagree?

Wallace1492

Always Tyred wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

That's disingenuous.

It was a bit.

Only a bit though.

It does shock me how people have bought into BAs version of events and the great recession myth that "We're all in this together".

http://www.unitetheunion.com/PDF/100milldispute.pdf

mmm. That's AFTER the first lot of strikes, though, isn't it?

The union's opening gambit was to go on strike about maintaining the salary of existing staff, but to reduce staff numbers over time. For example, they were up in arms about reducing from 15 to 14 staff on long haul flights, which is more than the 13 staff they used to have on long haul flights, on the grounds that each member of staff would have more work to do.

Don't know if that means they'll have less time to chat, or what, but I struggle to imagine that thesse particular union guys are terribly reasonable. Quite how 90% of cabin crew could actually agree, I simply don't know.

I don't think I can remember a less popular strike, even including the tanker drivers, tube drivers and post office workers.

Probably less time to chat up each other.... or check Gaydar..... :shock:

greg66_tri_v2.0

hmbadger wrote:

I don't think that anyone is saying that you can't have an opinion, irrespective of how much money you have.

But if you have a lot, and you are supporting sacking striking workers and replacing them with people who will work for less, then you can expect some stick.

Whereas if you were as poor a church mouse, and peddled that line, you shouldn't expect any stick?

Does not compute.

hmbadger

Greg66 wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

They're workers trying to maintain their standard of living. They are negotiating - accepting lower staff numbers, etc.

That's not at all what this strike is about. it's about reinstating non contractual perks to employees who've been on strike, and about reinstating sacked employees who've been dismissed for bullying and harassment.

hmbadger wrote:

This is mostly rubbish though. I'm a salaried employee and hence get holiday pay, etc. But do you not think this is taken into account when my company sets my salary level?

See above. This isn't about protecting salary levels any more. It's about the Union proving to its members that if they do what it asks them to, they won't suffer for it.

If you want to strike, fine. Just don't go crying to mummy when the consequences of that action cost you precisely what you were told they would. Principles have a price.

Even more reason to strike - discriminating against workers who take legal industrial action isn't on. But I guess it all boils down to whether you agree with the principles behind trade unionism, and the right to strike.

And they're not going crying to mummy - they're going on strike!

W1

hmbadger wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

They're workers trying to maintain their standard of living. They are negotiating - accepting lower staff numbers, etc.

That's not at all what this strike is about. it's about reinstating non contractual perks to employees who've been on strike, and about reinstating sacked employees who've been dismissed for bullying and harassment.

hmbadger wrote:

This is mostly rubbish though. I'm a salaried employee and hence get holiday pay, etc. But do you not think this is taken into account when my company sets my salary level?

See above. This isn't about protecting salary levels any more. It's about the Union proving to its members that if they do what it asks them to, they won't suffer for it.

If you want to strike, fine. Just don't go crying to mummy when the consequences of that action cost you precisely what you were told they would. Principles have a price.

Even more reason to strike - discriminating against workers who take legal industrial action isn't on. But I guess it all boils down to whether you agree with the principles behind trade unionism, and the right to strike.

And they're not going crying to mummy - they're going on strike!

A perk can be removed from anyone at any time - it's discretionary. They are welcome to strike, that's one of the consequences - like not getting paid for the days you decide to strike either.

spen666

hmbadger wrote:

.... discriminating against workers who take legal industrial action isn't on. ..

Why not?

Surely a company can reward those who support its ideals and views.

The reward being discounted flights


Why should company have to reward those who work against company's aims equally with those who support the company's views or aims

I suppose you think company should pay those who strike for the days they are on strike as well. Otherwise they are discriminating against those on strike aren't they?